By Jennifer Williams The Santa Clara County Farm Bureau seeks to
promote and defend agriculture in Santa Clara County. Due to
provisions in AB 2483 that threaten the economic viability of
farmers and ranchers, we oppose AB 2483.
The Santa Clara County Farm Bureau seeks to promote and defend agriculture in Santa Clara County. Due to provisions in AB 2483 that threaten the economic viability of farmers and ranchers, we oppose AB 2483.
Over the past few months, we have worked with Assemblyman Joe Coto and the Santa Clara Valley Water District to improve AB 2483. Our collaborative efforts have produced meaningful improvements. However, significant flaws remain.
Ag Rates<</p>
Santa Clara County residents have long valued the open space benefits of what remains of their agriculture industry, providing the basis for differential rates for agricultural water users. Since the original District Act was put in place nearly 60 years ago, agricultural water use has been charged a different rate than municipal and industrial use. This reflects, in part, agriculture’s reduced infrastructure and service costs as well as agriculture’s contributions to natural groundwater recharge via permeable surfaces of farmland and grazing lands.
In addition, agricultural water users receive a reduced rate in recognition of the challenges that exist to the economic sustainability of farming in Santa Clara County due to higher land values and increased regulatory costs. Farmers and ranchers in Santa Clara Valley would likely see an increase in groundwater fees of 17 to 32 times the current rates under AB 2483. Unlike water retailers, agricultural water users cannot pass an increase onto their customers. The economic impact of such a significant and burdensome increase in water costs would potentially result in the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars to the local economy and the fallowing of nearly 100,000 acres of prime farmland.
Ongoing litigation
In 2005, Great Oaks, a private water retail company that operates in a Santa Clara Valley Water District zone of benefit, sued the SCVWD, claiming the district overcharged the water retailer for groundwater extraction. Last year, a Santa Clara County Superior Court judge ruled in the plaintiff’s favor. The SCVWD has appealed that decision and the suit is pending. The water district should not pursue serious revisions to their District Act until pending litigation is finalized.
Water Quality
One of our most significant concerns with AB 2483 is an unnecessary expansion of authority to regulate water quality. We understand the need for the water district to maintain a sufficient level of confidence that water quality in their zones of service meets state standards. However, water quality in the county is regulated, monitored and enforced by the State Water Resources Control Board, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.
It is imprudent and duplicative for the water district to monitor water quality at ratepayers’ expense when other agencies are already tasked with that mission. A reasonable approach to this matter would be to add language to the bill that states that the district may act as a last line of defense for water quality when other regulatory authorities have neglected their responsibilities.
To this end, we have suggested water quality language similar to that of section 100002 (c), which relates to water conservation. The water district listened to our proposal but did not include the provision in recent amendments.
Groundwater Charges
Groundwater is the primary source of water for county residents, businesses and farmers. Under AB 2483, groundwater users in Santa Clara County would likely face increased uncertainty and steadily rising groundwater charges.
AB 2483 extends the water district’s ability to use groundwater management charges for an increasing variety of activities with little nexus to groundwater production. It is reasonable for groundwater users to pay the district’s costs for providing groundwater services. It is not reasonable for groundwater ratepayers to be charged for surface distribution or the treatment of water. If the water district is to “conjunctively manage its groundwater and surface water resources” (100020 (b)) it should appropriately levy fees against both surface water and groundwater users.
Tiered Rates
Water conservation is increasingly important in California. Farmers and ranchers in the Santa Clara Valley recognized this long ago and have been leaders in water conservation efforts, installing highly efficient drip and micro sprinkler irrigation systems throughout the region. Tiered rate structures neglect to account for either the cost or efficiency of these water conservation efforts. Tiered rates are punitive to large water users, causing them to bear a disproportionate burden, regardless of water conservation practices.
Agricultural water users have made significant gains in water use efficiency and conservation in recent decades. These efforts, rather than total water use, should be considered when levying water fees to encourage conservation.
We remain actively engaged in the legislative process of AB 2483 and will continue to work with Assemblyman Coto and the district to amend and improve AB 2483. It is our hope that the Assembly Appropriations Committee will recognize the concerns we have put forth and will vote against AB 2483.
Jennifer Williams is the Executive Director of the Santa Clara County Farm Bureau. Anyone wishing to write a guest column may contact Editor Robert Airoldi at
ed****@mo*************.com
.
